Synergy Between Teacher Practices and Curricular Scaffolds to Support Students in Using Domain-Specific and Domain-General Knowledge in Writing Arguments to Explain Phenomena

We investigated how 2 different curricular scaffolds (context-specific vs. generic), teacher instructional practices, and the interaction between these 2 types of support influenced students' learning of science content and their ability to write scientific arguments to explain phenomena. The context-specific scaffolds provided students with hints about the task and what content knowledge to use in or incorporate into their writing. The generic scaffolds supported students in understanding a general framework (i.e., claim, evidence, and reasoning) regardless of the content area or task. This study focused on an 8-week middle school chemistry curriculum that was enacted by 6 teachers with 578 students during the 2004–2005 school year. Analyses of identical pre- and posttests as well as videotapes of teacher enactments revealed that the curricular scaffolds and teacher instructional practices were synergistic in that the effect of the written curricular scaffolds depended on the teacher's enactment of the curriculum. The context-specific curricular scaffolds were more successful in supporting students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena, but only when teachers' enactments provided explicit domain-general support for the claim, evidence, and reasoning framework, suggesting the importance of both types of support in successful learning environments.

[1]  R. Duschl,et al.  "Doing the Lesson" or "Doing Science": Argument in High School Genetics , 2000 .

[2]  Yair Neuman,et al.  Construction of Collective and Individual Knowledge in Argumentative Activity , 2003 .

[3]  H. Schweingruber,et al.  TAKING SCIENCE TO SCHOOL: LEARNING AND TEACHING SCIENCE IN GRADES K-8 , 2007 .

[4]  Katherine L. McNeill.  Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena , 2009 .

[5]  J. Shea.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[6]  Amelia Wenk Gotwals,et al.  Measuring Students' Scientific Content and Inquiry Reasoning , 2006, ICLS.

[7]  B. Koslowski.  Theory and Evidence: The Development of Scientific Reasoning , 1996 .

[8]  R. Pea,et al.  The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and Human Activity , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[9]  Anat Zohar,et al.  Science Teacher Education and Professional Development in Argumentation , 2007 .

[10]  J. Osborne,et al.  Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms , 2000 .

[11]  D. Perkins,et al.  Are Cognitive Skills Context-Bound? , 1989 .

[12]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[13]  Katherine L. McNeill,et al.  Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy , 2008 .

[14]  Reed Stevens,et al.  Comparative Understanding of School Subjects: Past, Present, and Future , 2005 .

[15]  M. Linn,et al.  How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration? , 1991 .

[16]  William A. Sandoval,et al.  Conceptual and Epistemic Aspects of Students' Scientific Explanations , 2003 .

[17]  Shirley Simon,et al.  Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science , 2004 .

[18]  Mark Wilson,et al.  Constructing Measures: An Item Response Modeling Approach , 2004 .

[19]  D. Kuhn,et al.  The Path To Wisdom , 2001 .

[20]  Anat Zohar,et al.  Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics , 2002 .

[21]  J. Lagowski.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[22]  Hee-Sun Lee,et al.  Assessing Integrated Understanding of Science , 2008 .

[23]  Shirley Simon,et al.  Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom , 2006 .

[24]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project‐based science curriculum , 2004 .

[25]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[26]  S. Erduran,et al.  Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview , 2007 .

[27]  D. Kuhn.  Science as argument : Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking , 1993 .

[28]  Iris Tabak,et al.  BGuILE: Stragtegic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms , 2001 .

[29]  J. Bruner,et al.  The role of tutoring in problem solving. , 1976, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[30]  D. Perkins,et al.  Partners in Cognition: Extending Human Intelligence with Intelligent Technologies , 1991 .

[31]  Sibel Erduran,et al.  Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research , 2007 .

[32]  Brian J. Reiser,et al.  Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Student Work , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[33]  George E. DeBoer,et al.  Assessment Linked to Science Learning Goals: Probing Student Thinking Through Assessment , 2008 .

[34]  A. Parry.  Handbook of Qualitative Research , 2002 .

[35]  M. Linn,et al.  Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE , 2000 .

[36]  W. Shadish,et al.  Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , 2001 .

[37]  Susan M. Land,et al.  Scaffolding Preservice Science Teachers' Evidence-Based Arguments During an Investigation of Natural Selection , 2002 .

[38]  E. Davis.  Prompting Middle School Science Students for Productive Reflection: Generic and Directed Prompts , 2003 .

[39]  J. Lemke.  Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values , 1990 .

[40]  J. Roschelle.  Learning by Collaborating: Convergent Conceptual Change , 1992 .

[41]  S. Erduran,et al.  TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse , 2004 .

[42]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions , 2008 .

[43]  Hee-Sun Lee.  Scaffolding elementary students' authentic inquiry through a written science curriculum. , 2003 .

[44]  Katherine Lynch McNeill.  Supporting students' construction of scientific explanation through curricular scaffolds and teacher instructional practices. , 2006 .

[45]  Yael Kali,et al.  Designing coherent science education : implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy , 2008 .

[46]  Corinne Zimmerman.  The development of scientific reasoning skills. , 2000 .

[47]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

[48]  Iris Tabak,et al.  Synergy: A Complement to Emerging Patterns of Distributed Scaffolding , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[49]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[50]  Randy Yerrick,et al.  Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction , 2000 .

[51]  M. Engle.  Book Review: Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd Ed.) , 1999 .

[52]  William A. Sandoval,et al.  The Quality of Students' Use of Evidence in Written Scientific Explanations , 2005 .

[53]  Naomi Miyake,et al.  Explorations of Scaffolding in Complex Classroom Systems , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[54]  L. Schauble,et al.  Cross-Domain Development of Scientific Reasoning , 1992 .

[55]  Troy D. Sadler,et al.  Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research , 2004 .

[56]  William A. Sandoval,et al.  High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit , 2003 .

[57]  Cynthia Passmore,et al.  A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools , 2002 .

[58]  J. Kolodner,et al.  Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design , 2005 .

[59]  M. Gertrude Hennessey,et al.  Sixth-Grade Students' Epistemologies of Science: The Impact of School Science Experiences on Epistemological Development , 2000 .

[60]  Deanna Kuhn,et al.  The development of argument skills. , 2003, Child development.

[61]  María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre,et al.  Designing Argumentation Learning Environments , 2007 .

[62]  J. Osborne,et al.  Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education , 2002 .

[63]  Susan E. Newman,et al.  Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Craft of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. Technical Report No. 403. , 1987 .

[64]  J. H. McMillan.  Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research , 2001 .

[65]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials , 2006 .

[66]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Personally‐Seeded Discussions to Scaffold Online Argumentation , 2007 .